Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: Swing Weight Part 2 – Non-standard lengths

This is the part of the swingweight discussion where I expect to get lots of dialog, so here goes.
The modern trend in clubfitting seems to “fit” many golfers long and upright, which I don’t necessarily agree with, but can sound off on that later. Today, we’re going to talk about this subject, and I’m going to share my theory on what does and should happen to swingweight.
The idea of fitting a golfer with longer shafts is to accommodate his or her height and posture. Let’s say my friend who’s 6’3” really likes my irons, and wants a set “just like them”, but he wants them built to his own specs of 1” overlength. So, to accommodate his larger size and assumed strength, we build him a set of irons just like mine, except that the shafts 1 inch longer than mine are. Now, that one inch in the butt of the golf club shaft only adds about 2 grams to the overall weight of the club, and does nothing to the flex profile. So his new irons are EXACTLY like mine – same shaft flex, same heads, same everything.
BUT, when we put his new irons on the swingweight scale, he goes ballistic, because they read D7-9, rather than the D2 that I play. But they are not heavier than mine: they are just like mine, only altered to accommodate his size.
However, if he insists that they should be only D2, as a clubmaker, I have my work cut out for me. First, I have to grind weight off the clubheads . . . considerable weight, as much as 5-8% of the mass . . . with greatly alters the club, right? And removing that much mass then makes the shafts play much stiffer, increasing the frequency by a half a flex or more. So, in order to “match” the swingweight, I’ve created a tremendously lighter and stiffer club – nothing like the irons I have that he liked so much.
Or I guess I could counter-weight the club significantly, which also is dramatically changing the irons that we wanted to be “just like mine.”
What I have always proposed is that we think in the concept of “swingweight equivalent”. If the club is D2 at standard length, it’s going to be D4-5 at 1/2” over, maybe D8-9 at 1” over. When we are making shaft length adjustments that are shorter, that exact same club will be C9 or so at 1/2” shorter than standard.
I really think it’s just that simple. What about all of you?
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
Jeff
Jan 23, 2022 at 2:32 pm
If he likes your clubs, then why change the specs? Just because he is taller than you,which most people are, (lol) does not mean he needs longer clubs. It is about being able to square the clubface at the ball!!
Jeff
Jan 23, 2022 at 2:14 pm
He hit your clubs and liked them! Why change? Maybe your length is the length he really needs. It may allow him to set up to the ball properly and square the clubface at impact. I am sure he is probably taller than you and because of his height was fitted with longer clubs.
geohogan
Jul 18, 2020 at 10:11 am
@mark brooks, suggest to you that many brilliant scientists and inventors design
off the shelf golf shafts to be as cheap to make as possible.
How much value is in 99% of all shafts in play(off the shelf) when their made for
$5-$10 each.
IMO you need to go to after market shafts in order to get any consistency of CPM.
Xi iron shafts (cpm over 300 within recommended lengths) are as tip stiff as is possible for a graphite shaft within the given hosel diameter. Butt cut only is a good sign of a tip stiff shaft.
Ben Hogan’s clubs were C7-C9 SW for a reason. He swung the grip end of the club
He didnt throw the clubhead which is the tendency with high SW clubs.
Douglas Mael
Jul 17, 2020 at 11:38 am
I agree with this premise, at least in theory, Terry! In addition, many (but certainly far from all) golfers who need or prefer longer-than-standard playing length clubs are also stronger than your average golfer. These guys can, and often do, play much better with clubs that have a slightly higher swingweight. I know that I prefer the swingweight on all of my clubs to be at least D3-D4, and on my wedges, I want the swingweights to be above D5 or D6. I work out extensively and am far stronger than the average guy my age (71) and probably stronger than most guys in their 30s. Thus, I prefer clubs with a heavier swingweight, and play better golf when using them.
Bruce
Jul 17, 2020 at 10:20 am
I am a mechanical engineer and studied objects in motion, like golf clubs, rather extensively. Isaac Newton proposed laws of motion along with mathematical methods in 1687, and these fundamentals have been verified in thousands of experiments and predictions. Newton’s laws and mathematics are not to be questioned: they describe motion of visible objects over a wide range of velocities.
Swingweight is a balance property like two children on a see-saw – swingweight is a length times distance function: the lighter child is on the longer end of the see-saw.
Now the conclusion: Newton’s mathematical equations of motion do NOT contain any length times distance terms. Therefore swingweight is irrelevant to golf club motion. Forget about swingweight and play what works for you!!
Newton does provide a club matching parameter, but that is a topic for a whole different discussion.
Forged MB
Jul 17, 2020 at 9:59 am
It’s not as simple as just excepting the 6 point swing weight increase at 1” over because the MOI is not the same and therefore the feel, performance, and effort required to swing the club are not the same as a standard length D2 swing weighted club.
The problem is that the industry should not be using swing weight to begin with. It’s archaic and pointless. It’s much like building a club to a specific frequency. Swing weight and frequency are only accurate measurements when you are trying to replicate the EXACT SAME CLUB. You cannot build a club at a different length, weight, or with a different shaft and obtain a “match” by using swing weight and frequency.
In regards to the shaft, the amount of deflection does change when you simply lengthen the club even though the ei profile is not altered. So, the dynamic bending of the shaft is changed and influenced by the added length even without a change to the profile.
Bruce
Jul 17, 2020 at 10:26 am
On target: replicate a GIVEN clob, but not match a set. Club MOI is a valid matching parameter; hence the matched feel of single length clubs.
Robert
Jul 16, 2020 at 11:14 am
What about needing shorter lengths – 1/2 to 1 inch length? Have always heard if club already made get out the lead tape. Best to order special from factory and the manufacturer will use slightly heavier heads.
Have wondered if it would be better mfg cut shaft off at both ends differently to achieve the required length with same feel.
geohogan
Jul 15, 2020 at 5:57 pm
“long and upright”?
If longer, wouldnt it be logical to flatten the lie angle?
Dont golfers know by now that upright golf swings take a toll
on the body? After Tiger swung at his best in 2000
the gurus took his swing upright and we see the result
in damaged knees and lower back.
Drop into the Slot and Turn..
like Tiger in 2000, Ben Hogan and the G.O.A.T, Jack Nicklaus.
Forged MB
Jul 17, 2020 at 10:13 am
You think that swinging a shorter club (which typically means more static weight as well) while bent over more to accommodate that is easier on the body and less injury prone? I can’t think of anything worse for your back than trying to bend and turn and a high rate of speed.
A bit anecdotal, but I rarely hear of baseball players having lower back issues yet for golfers back problems are quite common. Granted the swings are on different planes, but the posture and orientation of the spine are quite different between the two while swinging with great amounts of force. I’ll take the golf swing with the more upright posture and increased extension all day long personally over the tilted and increased side bend move that is being taught by so many.
geohogan
Jul 18, 2020 at 9:56 am
IMO my hands want the butt of the club to be the same height from the ground for every club.
If the shaft is shorter or longer the lie angle is changed so hands on every club is swung from the same height from the ground.
Changing the swing (more upright) to adjust to a golf club
is going to lead to injury, IMO.
geohogan
Jul 19, 2020 at 8:27 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI
Babe Ruth, arguably the best baseball swing with plane of the swing mimicking the hips, much like Ben Hogans swing, so called flat swing.
Its no wonder baseball doesnt seem to have the knee and back problems golfers experience with upright swings.
Michael
Jul 22, 2024 at 2:05 am
WTF? Tiger went to a flatter plane after 2000. Not upright…lol. Haney had him flatter at the top. Because of Hogan. U cray cray.
Mark Brooks
Jul 15, 2020 at 4:45 pm
An inch longer golf club will not have the same “flex” or CPM reading.
The stiffest section of the vast majority of shafts is in the butt section, effectively there is an inch longer section remaining on the butt end of the shaft at an inch longer provided no tip trimming was done. If the swing weight was indeed adjusted to match the swing weight of the shorter club, the longer club should be stiffer by any measure of “flex”. Allowing the club to just “naturally “ move to a heavier swing weight will generally make that longer, now heavier swing weight club “play” and measure as the softer or more flexible of the two clubs.
The longer shaft is simply easier to bend than the shorter one with equal weight on both ends. The more length added the more dramatic the change. Conversely, a 1/4 inch change will yield very little change in “feel” or performance.
The golf shaft manufacturer’s employ many brilliant scientists and inventors, they design their shafts to perform the best within a reasonable set of parameters, including overall club length. When you stray too far outside designed for parameters, you’re essentially on your own. Hope this helps out !